MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2514085586 · doi:10.37236/6958

Simplicial Complexes are Game Complexes

2019· preprint· en· W2514085586 on OpenAlexafffund
Sara Faridi, Svenja Huntemann, Richard J. Nowakowski

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Electronic Journal of Combinatorics · 2019
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Games
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaTechnische Universität DarmstadtKillam Trusts
KeywordsSimplicial complexMathematicsFlag (linear algebra)Abstract simplicial complexInvariant (physics)CombinatoricsSimplicial approximation theoremClass (philosophy)Combinatorial game theorySimplicial homologyh-vectorPure mathematicsSequential gameGame theoryComputer scienceSimplicial setAlgebra over a fieldMathematical economicsArtificial intelligenceHomotopy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Strong placement games (SP-games) are a class of combinatorial games whose structure allows one to describe the game via simplicial complexes. A natural question is whether well-known parameters of combinatorial games, such as "game value", appear as invariants of the simplicial complexes. This paper is the first step in that direction. We show that every simplicial complex encodes a certain type of SP-game (called an "invariant SP-game") whose ruleset is independent of the board it is played on. We also show that in the class of SP-games isomorphic simplicial complexes correspond to isomorphic game trees, and hence equal game values. We also study a subclass of SP-games corresponding to flag complexes, showing that there is always a game whose corresponding complex is a flag complex no matter which board it is played on.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.007
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.260 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Electronic Journal of CombinatoricsSame topicArtificial Intelligence in GamesFrench-language works237,207